Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf Page 5

member of the family, which would account for the fact that he was so

  willingly selected to be handed over to alien powers as a hostage when it

  became a political necessity. When his father was still alive Philip was

  given to the Illyrians to ensure Macedonian tributes were paid on time and

  then in 367/366, together with 30 other Macedonians, he was next handed

  over to the Thebans. Though we know very little about the young

  Macedonian prince’s stay in Thebes, historians stress its significance of

  this episode in the life of Philip – the future king and military innovator.

  According to a legend preserved in a work by Diodorus Philip lived in the

  house of the father of the Theban leader Epaminondas and together with

  the latter was taught Pythagorean philosophy. This must be an apocryphal

  tale as by then Epaminondas would have been around fifty and most

  certainly engaged in warfare and power politics rather than learning

  Pythagorean doctrine. Much later anecdotal Greek sources present Philip

  as a rather uneducated man who was hardly likely to have studied

  philosophy. We can only presume that from his stay in Thebes Philip

  gained respect for the Boeotian army and the innovative tactics employed

  by their generals as well as personal contacts with the elites of Thebes,

  which was then the most powerful state in Greece.41

  After his return to Macedonia, Philip received from his brother

  Perdiccas III a province to govern, and it was then that he began to form

  his own military units. Philip did not take part in his brother’s battle

  against Bardylis, and when Perdiccas was killed, Philip along with his

  nephew Amyntas, became the obvious candidate to the Macedonian

  throne. Various ancient sources provide two versions of what happened

  next. One states that on account of the crisis the Macedonians immediately

  39 Diod., 16.2.4-5; Polyaen., 4.10.1. Pająkowski 2000, pp. 148-155.

  40 Borza 1990, p. 200.

  41 Diod., 16.2.2; Plu., Pel. , 26.4-8; Plu., mor. , 334c-d ; Just., 7.5.1-2; Scholia in Aeschin., 3.112; Suda, s.v. K£ranoj. Ogden 1999, pp. 12-13; Carney 2000, p. 41;

  Hammond 1994, pp. 8-10; Corvisier 2002, pp. 69-73.

  Childhood, Family, Macedonia

  17

  handed the throne to an already experienced, probably twenty-three-year-

  old Philip rather than the still infant Amyntas. The other claims that the

  child was made king while his uncle ruled in his name as a regent. For

  historians studying Macedonia’s political situation after Perdiccas’ death

  the notion of putting an infant on the throne seems absurd, thus opinions

  that Philip immediately succeeded his bother as ruler prevail, being at the

  same time a guardian of the heir Amyntas.42 Philip’s early ascension to the

  throne is also confirmed by an inscription of Olveni in Lyncestis.

  However, another inscription (of Lebadeia in Boeotia) seems to confirm

  that the royal title was also held by Amyntas. If these contemporary

  inscriptions refer indeed to Amyntas IV and Philip II, they prove beyond

  doubt that both were rulers of Macedonia. In such a case Philip may have

  been a regent for his nephew and received the royal title two years after

  Perdiccas’ death. This is the version of his biographer Satyrus, who states

  that Philip reigned for 22 years, whereas he died 24 years after his brother

  Perdiccas. If we take into account not only the political aspects of the

  Macedonian monarchy but also the religious ones, the thesis that Philip II

  and Amyntas IV reigned simultaneously becomes more plausible. Whilst

  Philip had de facto political and military control, Amyntas was left with

  religious functions that were his by right of inheritance. With time Philip’s

  position in Macedonia became so strong that for the rest of his life

  Amyntas IV was never in a position to have his uncle cede him some of

  the authority that was his by right. One can assume that Philip never

  considered Amyntas to be a serious political rival and for this reason did

  not kill him, though the murdering of relatives with rival claims to the

  throne was quite common in the Argead family.43

  The Illyrian victory over the Macedonians in 359 put both Philip and

  his country in such a difficult position that its very existence as an

  independent state became uncertain, for apart from Bardylis’ victory new

  threats appeared from the Paionians, Thracians, Athenians as well as a

  number of claimants to the throne from other branches of the Argead clan.

  The way in which Philip II pulled Macedonia out of this crisis proved to

  be characteristic of his entire reign: he was able to correctly prioritise

  foreign policy issues; he usually preferred to use diplomacy but was able

  to decisively use military force when the former proved unreliable or

  42 Just., 7.5.9-7.6.2; Satyr., F25 ap. Ath., 13.5; Diod., 16.1.3, 16.2.1. Cawkwell

  1978, pp. 27-28; Griffith 1979, pp. 208-209, 702-704; Borza 1990, p. 200; Anson

  2009.

  43 Philip’s inscription: Hatzopoulos 1995; Amyntas’ inscription: IG, vii.3055;

  Satyr., F25 ap. Ath., 13.5. Goukowsky 1991; Tronson 1984, p. 126 ; Hammond

  1994, pp. 23-24; Corvisier 2002, pp. 74-76; Schorn 2004, pp. 423-424.

  18

  Chapter I

  ceased serving its purpose and he was also skilled in using bribery to

  achieve his political goals. First Philip had to deal with all the pretenders

  to the Macedonian throne: Argaios (who was supported by Athens),

  Pausanias (who was backed by Cotys the king of the Odrysians),

  Archelaus, Arrhidaeus and Menelaus. By withdrawing Macedonian troops

  from Amphipolis, Philip avoided a conflict with Athens, which had always

  wanted control of this city. It was with money that Philip managed to stave

  off the danger of another Paionian invasion and persuade the son of Cotys,

  who had in the meantime been murdered, to get rid of Pausanias. The

  invasion force of 3,000 Athenian mercenaries in support of Argaios came

  later than had been planned and though initially they managed to capture

  Aegae, ultimately they were defeated. The Athenians were forced to hand

  over their pretender to Philip, but they were allowed to keep Amphipolis.

  The Macedonian army was reorganized in the first year of Philip’s reign,

  and in 358 he was already deploying it in serious military operations

  beyond Lower Macedonia’s borders. At the start of that year, he made use

  of the Paionian king’s death and subjugated their state. Next, having

  rejected peace proposals, he launched an offensive against Bardylis. In a

  pitched battle at Lyncestis the Illyrians lost 7,000 soldiers and had to cede

  all the territories in Upper Macedonia they had previously captured from

  the Kingdom of Macedonia. Peace was secured through the marriage of

  Philip to the Illyrian princess Audata.44 The hold over Upper Macedonia

  was, on the other hand, made safer thanks to his marriage to Phila, who

  was most probably a member of the royal family of Elimeia. These were

  the first of a series of matrimonial unions which, in the short-term rather

  than the long-term, worked to Philip’s political advantage. They are

  presented as such in more or less chronological order by his biographer


  Satyrus: ‘Philip always married a new wife with each new war he

  undertook. In the twenty-two years of his reign at any rate he married

  Audata of Illyria, and had by her a daughter, Cynane; he also married

  Phila, a sister of Derdas and Machatas. Wishing to put in a claim to the

  Thessalian nation as his own besides others, he begot children by two

  women of Thessaly, one of whom was Nicesipolis of Pherae, who bore to

  him a daughter called Thessalonice, while the other was Philinna of

  Larissa, by whom he became the father of Arrhidaeus. He acquired also

  the kingdom of the Molossians by marrying Olympias, by whom he had

  Alexander and Cleopatra. And when he subjugated Thrace, Cothelas the

  Thracian king came over to his side, bringing with him his daughter

  44 This paragraph mostly after: Hammond 1994, pp. 23-28.

  Childhood, Family, Macedonia

  19

  Medea and a large dowry. By marrying her he thus brought home a second

  wife after Olympias.’45

  Having successfully protected Macedonia against all the dangers that

  immediately followed Perdiccas’ death, Philip started Macedonia’s

  gradual expansion to become a powerful Balkan empire. His pretext to

  intervene in Thessaly in 358 was the disputes between successive tyrants

  of the city of Pherae near the Gulf of Pagasae. The city’s tyrants were

  trying to unite the country, which was traditionally ruled by an inland

  aristocracy, by force. Philip sided with the aristocrats and married a

  woman called Philina, who was most probably a member of the Aleuads,

  the largest aristocratic family in Thessaly. He returned to Thessaly in the

  years 354-352 when the Pheraean tyrants, in alliance with the brilliant

  Phocian leader Onomarchus, tried once again to take over the country.

  This was when Philip faced his most critical test as a military and political

  leader. The Macedonians were defeated twice in battle, but Philip gained

  the support of the Thessalian League, which appointed him lifelong archon

  and thus also gave him command of its troops. The office of archon

  (president) had in fact been created by the Thessalian League quite

  recently, in 369, to reorganise and consolidate its military forces against a

  contemporary tyrant of Pherae. Philip now had at his disposal the united

  forces of Macedonia and Thessaly including some 20,000 infantry and

  3,000 cavalry with which at the Battle of the Crocus Field in 352 he finally

  defeated Onomarchus’ army, including approximately the same number of

  infantry but only 500 cavalrymen. With this victory Philip was able to

  force the tyrants out of Pherae and become the unquestioned ruler of

  Thessaly. Perhaps he also received the title of tagos, which had been held

  by an earlier ruler of Thessaly, Jason of Pherae, whose relative Nicesipolis

  Philip married. The reaching of an understanding between Philip and the

  Thessalian aristocracy was facilitated by the fact that both Macedonia and

  Thessaly were still relatively primitive civilizations with value systems

  more reminiscent of the Homeric era than the Greek polis of the second

  half of the 4th century. A characteristic feature of their culture was the

  binding of ritualised friendship ( xenia) between the elites of different

  states by exchanging gifts and appropriate favours to the aristocracies. The

  most famous example of this tradition is related in Book 6 of The Iliad

  where Diomedes and Glaucus, from opposing sides, meet on the battlefield

  outside Troy but do not fight when they realise they are bound by the ties

  of xenia between their families. In the Archaic period, when the state was

  45 Satyr., F25 ap. Ath., 13.5, perhaps after Theopompus. Schorn 2004, pp. 421-430.

  Carney 2000, pp. 51-81 relates the long scholarly discussion on this passage.

  20

  Chapter I

  still a relatively new and weak entity, aristocrats from various Greek poleis

  and even from beyond Greece world were bound together by xenia, which

  meant there was greater solidarity within their social group than political

  loyalty towards their particular countries. Such was the world of the

  charismatic leader of the Athenian aristocrats Alcibiades at the time of the

  Peloponnesian War, but by the 4th century identification with one’s polis

  became a stronger force dictating the political actions of the social elites

  rather than their ritualised friendships, which were now strictly relegated

  to their private lives. Yet this was not the case with Thessaly, which was

  still ruled by great aristocratic families, whose representatives now

  showered Philip with gifts and with whom he was now bonded by two of

  his seven marriages. On account of the country’s strategic location, the

  subjugation of Thessaly and its subsequent loyalty throughout Philip and

  Alexander’s reigns was the foundation stone of the empires of both of

  these two great Argeads. By controlling Thessaly they not only had control

  of the road between central Greece and Macedonia, but also the ability to

  raise a very large army, especially an unmatched cavalry of 3,000-6,000

  riders, whose contributions to the victories at Issus and Gaugamela cannot

  be overrated.46

  The threat from the Illyrians brought Macedonia closer to the

  Molossian kingdom in Epirus. This tribal state was, like Macedonia itself,

  situated on the borderlands of the Greek world. It was ruled by the Aiacid

  dynasty, which traced its origins to Neoptolemus the son of Achilles. After

  Neoptolemus’ death the Molossian throne was taken over by his brother

  Arybbas. In 357 Arybbas sealed his alliance with Philip II of Macedonia

  by giving him as wife his niece Olympias, who in her childhood may have

  also been called Myrtale or Polyxena. Plutarch cites from an unknown

  source a story in which Philip becomes enamoured of her during their first

  encounter while she was performing initiations in the Cabiric mysteries at

  Samothrace. Regardless of the historical veracity of this romantic tale, this

  is widely regarded to have been a political marriage. Soon afterwards the

  weak Molossian kingdom became a de facto vassal state of Macedonia.

  Most probably in 342 Philip II installed Olympias’ brother Alexander on

  that kingdom’s throne. Alexander had spent several years at the

  Macedonian court, where he gained the trust of his powerful brother-in-

  law. According to some sources, he had also become an object of Philip’s

  46 Cawkwell 1978, pp. 58-62; Griffith 1979, pp. 220-223; Buckler 1989, pp. 48,

  58-84; Rhodes 1994, pp. 585-586; Sprawski 2000; Sprawski 2004; Hammond

  1994, pp. 45-49; Corvisier 2002, pp. 205-222. On xenia see: Herman 1987 and

  Mitchell 2002. Thessalian cavalry: Lendon 2005, pp. 98-102.

  Childhood, Family, Macedonia

  21

  homosexual desires. The hapless Arybbas and his sons had to seek refuge

  in Athens.47

  Of equal importance was Macedonia’s expansion to the northeast. Here

  the first city Philip conquered was Amphipolis, an important colony

  founded by the Athenians in 437/436 on the river Strymon not far from its

  estuary into the Aegean. After 424 it broke away from Athens but

  continued to be much
desired territory and was repeatedly but each time

  unsuccessfully besieged by the Athenians. Unlike the Athenians, who in

  preceding years had in vain tried to make Amphipolis surrender by

  imposing a blockade, Philip captured the city in 357 after an aggressive

  siege during which the walls were demolished with battering rams.

  Amphipolis was permanently incorporated into the Macedonian kingdom.

  That same year Philip II also took Pydna. This city was allied to Athens,

  but at the time the Athenians were engaged in war with rebellious

  members of the Second Maritime League. The next city he took over in

  357 was Crenides in Thrace together with its adjacent gold mines. This

  was done in response to a request made by the Greek inhabitants

  themselves, who preferred the Macedonian ruler to the Odrysian king

  Cersobleptes. Under Philip II’s rule Crenides maintained its Greek

  character and system of government, like Amphipolis, but it did change its

  name to Philippi, which was the first instance in the Greek world of a city

  being named after its founder. Exploitation of the mineral resources of

  Thrace gave Philip the incredibly vast by ancient Greek standards annual

  revenue of 1,000 talents and went a long way to cover the costs of his

  constant wars. By 355 Philip gained full control of the Thermaic Gulf.

  Methone was the last city Philip captured on this seaboard, during the

  siege of which he lost his right eye, struck by an arrow fired from the

  beleaguered city. The struggle to subjugate Thrace lasted intermittently

  almost throughout Philip’s reign as a result of which a large part of that

  country was indirectly ruled by the Macedonian king perhaps on the

  principles of the Persian satrapy system. However, the most important

  stage in the conquest of territories to the east of Macedonia was the

  conflict with the Chalcidian League. In the 4th century Greek cities on the

  Chalcidice Peninsula formed a federal state with common citizenship, law,

  coinage and a powerful army. When he was still weak Philip II won the

  league’s favour by ceding it Potidaea. But in 349 he waged war, the

  47 Diod., 16.72.1, 19.51; Plu., Alex. , 2; Plu., Pyrrh., 1; Satyr., ap. Ath., 13.5; Paus., 1.11.1; Just., 7.6.10, 8.6, 9.7, 17.3.14; Tod, GHI, 173. Griffith 1979, pp. 305-308,